The Tribunal allowed the securitisation application, quashing the bank's demand and possession notices. The court held the bank failed to prove valid service of notices as required by Rule 3 of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002, vitiating further measures.
Quashed the demand notice dated 12.10.2021 and the possession notice dated 04.06.2022.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL_ II AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE FOURTHDAY OF JULY,2025
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWARKOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons'),M'A' PRESIDING OFFICER
SECURITISATIONAPPLICATION NO. 2BO OF 2022
Between:
Both apPlicants areresidents of: H.No.2-20-5/316 Adarsh Nagar, UPPaIKalan Hydera bad- 500039 Telangana State.
And
1..)nion Bank of India Survey of India ComPlex lJppal Road,llyderabad-39 Rep by its BranchManager. ... .Respondent.
Counsel for theApplicants: Mr. T' Sridhar' Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M'V'S' Prasad' o,w.o
sA 2aO/2022
2
-:ORDER:-
sA 2aol2o22
photostat copies of the said notices from the respondent bank. Respondent bank has not followed Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, Applicants want to clear the debt lawfully and respectfully provided an opportunity is granted.
sA 2AO I 2022
for the respondent bank. perused the material brought on record.
- Learned counsel for the respondents, while reiterating the contentions in his reply statements, prayed for dismissing the sA as it is devoid of any merits.
i) Whether the Applicants made out any valid ground .for quashing the possession notice dated 01.06.2022 issued by the respondent bank against the SA schedule property under the provi.sions qf Securiti.sation Act? i, To what relie/?
Point No.(i):
sA zao | 2022
section 2 of Section 13 of the Act. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of Rule 3 is reproduced here below:-
3. Demand notice.
(l) The service of demand notice as re.ferred to in subsection (2) qf section 13 oJ the (Act) shall be made by delivering (including hand delivery) or transmitting at lhe place where the borrower or his agent, empowered to accept the notice or documents on behalf of the borrower, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on busines.s or personqlly work.s .for gain, by registered post with acknou,ledt:ement due, addressed to the borrower or his agent empowered to accept the service or by Speed Post or by courier or by uny other meqns o.f transmission of documents likefox messoge or electronic mail service:
PROVIDED that where authorised fficer has reason to believe that the boruower or his agent is avoiding the service of the notice or that .for any other reason, the service connot be made as afbresaid, the service shall be ffictedby ffixinga copy of the demand notice on the outer door or some olher conspicuous part o/'the house or building in which the bonower or his agent ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally worlcs for gain and also by publishing the contents f the demand notice in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language, having sfficient circulation in that locality."
B. Respondent bank has filed photostat copy of demand notice dated 12.10.202L and itspaper publication in Business Standard and Velugu editions dated 26.02.2022 i.e., four months after the date of issuance of the demand notice. Respondent hasneither filed proof of service of demand noticepersonally, transmitting at theplace of applicants residence or byregistered post with acknowledgement due or by anothermeans like fax mageor electronic mail service in line with theprocedure prescribedu/r 3(1) of the Security Interest(Enforcement) Rules,2002. It is not the case of the respondentbank that apltr[cants avoided
OW"*
sA 2AO/2022
service of demand notice by any of the means stipulated in Rule 3(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The pleadings of the respondent bank are also silent as to the circumstances that prompted it in publishing of demand notice in newspapers that too after a gap of four months from the date of issuance of the said notice without there being any attempt to serve the same through registered post. In such a situation, it is to be construed that the respondent bank failed to serve demand notice on the applicants as per the procedure laid under Rule 3(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2022. Therefore, all further measures under the Securitisation Act including that of issuance of possession notice u/s 13(4) are vitiated. Even otherwise also, the respondent has not placed any proof of service of possession notice dated 04.06.2022 in terms of Rule B(1) on the applicant. On this count also, the possession notice dated 04.06.2022 is liable to be dismissed.
Point No.(ii):
sA 2ao/2o22
lnAmfsHMAh xorHr) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicants made out valid grounds for quashing the possession notice under the provisions of Securitisation Act?
Whether the service of demand and possession notices complied with Rule 3 of Security Interest Enforcement Rules 2002?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs. Vosukula SwarooPa W/o V. Saraiah
Mr. Vosukula Srinivas W/o V. Saraiah
Union Bank of India
Rameshwar Kothe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
